Talk:Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Regions of Republika Srpska

Just in case this wasn't noticed already at Talk:Regions of Republika Srpska... the five regions seem to be dubious. --Joy [shallot] 13:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mostar

On the website of the parliament of FBiH, Mostar is divided in two: http://www.parlamentfbih.gov.ba/js/mapavel3.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.17.162 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Brcko District

The claim that the Brcko District is not part of either the Federation or Republika Srpska might de facto be true (that is how things are run on the ground), but de iure it is false. If the Brcko District is not part of either entity, this would imply that the District is in fact the third entity. This would be a major breach of the general framework of the Dayton peace agreement (and the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina), which states that the country is internally composed of only two entities. Also, the Brcko District as 'not part of either entity' would make the territorial formula agreed at Dayton (49% of Bosnia-Herzegovina as Republika Srpska, 51% as the Federation) unworkable. OHR, Office of the High Representative (http://www.ohr.int), provided a clarification on the status of the Brcko District, stating that the District is in fact a condominium of both entities. This means that the territory of the District is shared by both entities, although the entities exercise no executive power there. In other words, the Brcko District territory is both Republika Srpska and the Federation. Technically, this would apply to the whole territory of the District - in that way, there is no third entity, and 49-51% formula is (somehow) preserved. That said, it should be pointed out that the Brcko District was proclaimed on the whole territory of the prewar Brcko municipality. According to the Dayton map, 42% of the prewar Brcko municipality (including the town of Brcko) ended up in the Republika Srpska, while 58% of the prewar Brcko municipality ended up in the Federation. Although the Brcko District was proclaimed in 1999, IEBL (Inter Entity Boundary Line) within its territory was never officially abolished; IEBL plays no administrative function within the District, except to mark the line beyond which the Bosnian Serb Army (Vojska Republike Srpske) traveling through the District can not go (and vice versa for the Federation Army). Thus, it remains unclear how the entities hold the condominium over the whole District if the IEBL still exists on the books, and the District was created out of uneven chunks of both entity's territory. Given the fact that the Republika Srpska never officially accepted the arbitration result (one of the reasons IEBL was never officially abolished), the only solution is to show the Republika Srpska territory within the Brcko District (42% of it) on the Republika Srpska entity map, but color it differently, and the same formula should be used vis-à-vis the Federation territory within the Brcko District (58% of it) on the Federation entity map. When you put all of this together, you have a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing only two entities but also acknowledging the existence of the Brcko District - the neutral position.

p.s.

The 'condominium' idea or the Brcko District is demonstrated by the way in which people declare themselves within the District. Citizens of the District have a right to hold entity citizenship of either Republika Srpska or the Federation, and have the right to vote on their entity's elections, although they are banned from serving in either entity's army.

"Political"

Hi – I'm wondering what makes these divisions political rather than administrative; is it that they're contingent on the Dayton agreement, i.e. not meant to be regarded as long-term...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the RS could legally block any attempt to dismantle it, whereas a simple administrative division has no rights outside those granted or taken away by the state. Also, not sure what you mean that they're not meant to be regarded as long term? The RS is a permanent and inviolable right of the people who live in it.--Hadžija 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dayton Accords

The first paragraph of the article, concerning the Dayton Accords, sounds really biased against them. Qscgy256 (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The biased-sounding revision was the work of a blocked user. Reverted.--Zoupan 02:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I support Zoupan's proposed merger of Constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina into this article. Two separate articles are viable, but what we have at present is two sub-standard, poorly referenced and dated articles, so let's merge what we do have and try to improve it. If the merged article grows significantly, then we can consider splitting it again. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Zoupan 11:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Changed "Federal" to "Confederal" per consensus below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina → Federal entities of Bosnia and HerzegovinaFederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina – To clearly differentiate the entities (as they are called in the constitution) from the municipalities and cantons (which are also divisions). FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Support per WP:PRECISE Kowal2701 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The article uses the terms federation and confederation. We should probably make sure to pick the right one first. --Joy (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I think confederation is more accurate given the high level of autonomy. We definitely have to pick one or the other though, because "Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" feels even more vague honestly. However, this does leave us with the clunky name "Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina", but I can't think of any better solution. Anyway, we should standardize it whether this page gets moved or not, because calling them "federal entities" and then going back and saying it's described as a confederation doesn't make sense. Also, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina calls itself a federation, so it makes more sense for it to have more autonomy on the nationwide scale than the same amount (i.e, a federation in a confederation makes more sense than a federation within a federation). FloblinTheGoblin (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, so Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Or maybe just Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina? --Joy (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer Confederal because I personally feel like political entities of... doesn't really solve the problem of vagueness since it could be argued the cantons and municipalities are also political entities. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina has been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Support the current proposal and Strong support "Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Although the term "Federal entities" is more precise, I think there might be confusion with the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its cantons. I think "Confederal entities" serves the purpose better. --Governor Sheng (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus impossible to determine. This RM is a mess, largely due to clanker use by User:Vratiosevalter (with a hint of socking). I'm closing this way because the AI arguments, excluded from consensus, are threaded into all of the other comments. This is closed without prejudice to another RM being opened with a nom statement and comments written by a human being. (non-admin closure) Feeglgeef (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina → Entities of Bosnia and HerzegovinaEntities of Bosnia and Herzegovina –

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The current title "Confederal entities" is a legal misnomer that contradicts Article I of the Constitution of BiH and Constitutional Court ruling U-5/98. All sovereign functions (defense, borders, taxation) are centralized under the state Council of Ministers, rendering the "confederal" label factually inaccurate under WP:V and WP:NOR.

Rationale for Change

1. Constitutional Mandate: The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) never defines the state as a confederation. Article I(1) establishes the state's legal continuity, while Article I(3) explicitly names the internal components as "Entities." Using "Confederal" constitutes a reclassification of the state's nature not found in any primary legal document. OHR Source
2. Binding Judicial Authority: The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in its landmark decision U-5/98 (Constituency of Peoples), ruled that the entities "are not states" and do not possess sovereignty, as the Constitution "does not recognize the sovereignty of the entities." Labeling them as "confederal" (implying a union of sovereign states) is a factual error. Constitutional Court of BiH
3. Functional Sovereignty vs. Administrative Autonomy: Contrary to the previous discussion's assumptions, all primary sovereign functions are centralized. The Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina manages the following state-level portfolios, leaving entities with no sovereign capacity in these areas:
   • Foreign Policy & Trade: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations.
   • Borders & Security: Ministry of Security (controlling the State Border Police). Entities have no authority over international borders.
   • Defense: Ministry of Defence (managing the unified Armed Forces of BiH).
   • Finance & Taxation: Ministry of Finance and Treasury and the state-level Indirect Taxation Authority (customs and VAT).
   • Justice & Human Rights: Ministry of Justice and Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees.
   • Civil Affairs: Ministry of Civil Affairs (state passports and citizenship).
4. Institutional Consensus: Major international bodies exclusively use "Entities":
   • European Union: Refers to "entities and cantons" .
   • Forum of Federations: Classifies BiH as a federal country with "two constituent units known as entities" .
   • Robert Schuman Foundation: Describes the system as having "two autonomous entities" .

Conclusion

The title "Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" is the established WP:COMMONNAME in international law and academic research. The current title "Confederal entities" acts as Original Synthesis (WP:SYNTH), where editors have inferred a confederal nature based on decentralization—a move explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia's policy against original research. We must prioritize Accuracy (WP:ACCURACY) over the "convenience" of avoiding name confusion.

--- Additional Reliable Sources supporting this move:

• Constitution of BiH - Human Rights Library
• Constitution of the FBiH Entity

Vratiosevalter (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Two things.

1: Oppose Your argument is not wrong, that is the common and legal name. However, the descriptive word Confederal serves to disambiguate from any other kind of entity per WP:PRECISE. Entity is defined by Merriam-Webster as "an organization (such as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members" or "something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality". The first one could refer to any company, non-profit, or club in the country. The second could refer to essentially anything from a person to a mineral from the country. The term Confederal is necessary to distinguish it from all of these things.

2: Read WP:AITALK. I have a suspicion that this talk page comment may have been generated by AI and if so will need to be collapsed. If this is the case, feel free to write a new argument in your own words. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, as the article states, many institutions consider the country a confederation due to its structure. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The comment, in the end, was indeed composed by an AI. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

the argument regarding disambiguation (WP:PRECISE) cannot be used to justify the introduction of terminology that is legally and factually incorrect. Relying on general-purpose dictionaries like Merriam-Webster is unnecessary in this context because the legal nature of Bosnia and Herzegovina is precisely defined by its Constitution and the binding rulings of its Constitutional Court which in its landmark decision U-5/98 (the Decision on the Constituency of Peoples), clearly established that the entities "are not states" and are legally subordinate to the sovereignty of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since a confederation is, by definition, a union of sovereign states, adding the adjective "Confederal" to the title is a direct violation of the policies against (WP:SYNTH) and for a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). It imposes a political interpretation that has no basis in the current constitutional order. ​The court's findings on the non-confederal nature of the state can be reviewed in the official ruling: Decision U-5/98. Vratiosevalter (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin, thanks for the reply. I understand your argument regarding WP:PRECISE, but I believe that in this specific case, it cannot override WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACCURACY for several reasons.

Firstly, within the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina's political and constitutional law, "Entity" is a specific term of art. A reader looking for information on BiH's administrative units is unlikely to confuse them with "organizations, businesses, or minerals," as a general dictionary definition might suggest. Wikipedia should be guided by terminology found in primary legal sources (Annex 4 of the Dayton Agreement) and established academic research, rather than general-purpose dictionarie, more over so, the descriptor "Confederal" is exactly the kind of original synthesis I am concerned about. The Constitution of BiH does not use this adjective. Adding such a label for "clarity" actually compromises WP:NPOV by imposing a political interpretation that is not present in the official name or the primary legal framework.

I appreciate your vigilance in regards to AI , but I assure you these arguments stem from my work in the fields of sociology, conflict research and constitutional structures and my ongoing contributions to Wikipedia. I believe we should focus on the merit of the sources provided rather than procedural suspicions, I suggest we stick to what the relevant legal and academic sources dictate: the entities are simply "Entities," without added interpretative adjectives or as a compromise, "Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Vratiosevalter (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

For one thing, this can still be considered the common name since "confederal" is a disambiguator. We are still calling them "entities" because, yes, that's what they are, we are just adding a disambiguating adjective. This is considered "natural disambiguation" per WP:DISAMBIG. For a similar example, see English language. As far as WP:NPOV, see the Croat-Serb Constitutional Principles for Bosnia-Herzegovina agreement, which begins, "Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be a confederation(.)" If that's not enough, NPOV says Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Since reliable sources consider it a confederation, we should assume that viewpoint, while mentioning the opposing viewpoint if supported by other reliable sources. Here are those very sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, however do note that source number four also uses the term federation. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Washington Agreement as documented, established the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and regulated relations between that entity and the Republic of Croatia. Contemporary reporting from the period reflects that confederal ideas were discussed during negotiations, including proposals involving Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, these were political proposals in a wartime context rather than arrangements that ultimately became part of the binding constitutional order.

What matters for the present classification is the legal framework that was actually adopted and remains in force. The Dayton Peace Agreement, through Annex IV, establishes Bosnia and Herzegovina as a continuing sovereign state under international law, with an internal structure composed of two Entities. This is the constitutional basis used in practice today, and it is consistently interpreted in the same way by authoritative bodies. (see comment from user /Jfruh below)

The Venice Commission, whose website you also cited in connection with the Washington Agreement, provides particularly relevant guidance here. In its opinions, it describes Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state composed of two Entities and emphasizes that these Entities do not possess sovereignty in the international law sense. Earlier opinions similarly characterize the Entities as constituent parts of a single state and confirm that Bosnia and Herzegovina retains its international legal personality. Read together, these interpretations align with a federal-type constitutional structure rather than a confederal one. In that light, references to confederal arrangements in pre-Dayton negotiations or in media reporting reflect historical possibilities that were discussed at the time, not the legal outcome that was ultimately implemented. They should therefore be treated as contextual background rather than as a basis for describing the current constitutional status of the state.

But, on an important note in regard to your reply to the user @Jfruh, your position actually highlights an important point that supports the proposal rather than contradicting it.

In that exchange, the distinction being made between descriptive terminology and formal classification is already acknowledged. This aligns with the idea that the naming of the article should reflect a neutral, descriptive, and widely applicable term rather than one that embeds a specific interpretative stance (for example, a term derived from dictionary-style generalizations that do not account for the constitutional and institutional specificity of Bosnia and Herzegovina).

For that reason, a formulation such as “Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina” would be a reasonable compromise. It preserves neutrality, avoids overloading the title with contested theoretical interpretations, and clearly communicates that the term refers to the constitutional components of the state rather than implying a particular legal model such as a confederation or federation. At the same time, it also distinguishes the topic from generic dictionary definitions that were previously invoked, which do not fully capture the specific institutional context being discussed here.

In this sense, your exchange with @Jfruh can be read as converging toward a shared understanding: that the terminology used should remain descriptive, precise, and consistent with how reliable sources characterize the structure, rather than relying on simplified or overly generalized definitions.

Cheers! Vratiosevalter (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Consider this me officially changing my choice to that, then. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement of keeping "confederal" within the title of the article in question. I tried to search up to see if any other articles used "Entities of" at the beginning of the article and I only found about Government entities of Colombia (note that departments are used in Colombia as equivalent of provinces or states, rather this refers to the parts of the Colombian government.) and this excerpt of List of states of Mexico:

A state (Spanish: estado), officially a Free and Sovereign State (Spanish: estado libre y soberano), is a constituent federative entity of Mexico according to the Constitution of Mexico.

This could have a chance of an editor wanting to make it out that the states are apart of mexico as self-governing divisions, so I don't think that it would count in this case. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use confederal or federal since it is not legally described as such. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, well explained by @FloblinTheGoblin Governor Sheng (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Joy, @Kowal2701 due to involvement in previous discussion. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 19:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support the move per the explanation above. Putting "confederal" in front of the constitutional name for these units implies that it is part of the formal name, which it is not: as aptly demonstrated by Vratiosevalter, "Entity" is the formal name. It is also controversial to describe Bosnia and Herz. as a confederal state; the nature of the state is in fact a subject of live debate by its inhabitants and we do not want to imply certainty where it does not exist. --Jfruh (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm... you do raise a good point here, although I do feel a disambiguator is needed. Perhaps "political entities" as proposed in the last discussion? While I don't agree with Vratiosevalter's idea that entities on its own is enough to disambiguate, perhaps it would be enough to disambiguate from the second level subdivisions? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  I sincerely do not thing we need to preemptively disambiguate this article from other "entities" (small e) of BiH, because such entities have yet to merit an article and I really doubt they ever will. "State" is also a word in English that has a variety of meanings, but we don't disambiguate it in the States of Germany article title, for instance.

  While we're on the note of federations, confederations, etc., I also emphasize you to be very careful on parsing the various treaties, agreements, and proposals that went into the creation of the modern state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The "Croat-Serb Constitutional Principles for Bosnia-Herzegovina" you cite were a proposal that was never implemented as law, for instance.

  "Political entities" isn't a terrible article name -- it's better than what we have now, which is actively incorrect in my view -- but again, "entity" on its own is a term of art in this specific case, and I don't think there's anything wrong with using it. I apologize for not chiming in on the original move request from a few months ago -- not sure how I missed it but I would've said as much then if I had seen it. I also don't particularly think there was anything wrong with "political divisions," since there's also the odd case of the Brčko District, which is in theory shared by both entities but in practice separate from them. Jfruh (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't believe a regular English-speaking user with little knowledge of BiH policies would know what "entity" refers to. I do like the idea of political divisions, but then, to me, that seems to imply mentions of the cantons as well, which could also be classified as political divisions, however this is not mentioned in the article. I feel like all of these names have some sort of issue, all of which are inherent, other than political divisions, which could possibly(?) be solved with adding a short reference to the cantons? Or do you think it could just be left with the assumption people will not assume that they will be included in the article? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  They don't need to know what an entity is -- explaining that is what the article is for. I don't really understand that objection. How many regular English-speaking users could say off the top of their head what a prefecture is? Any link to this article would exist in a context that would also provide that information.

  The template associated with this page has all the different levels of political division in the country. I feel like this article used to be much more comprehensive and I'm not sure if that stuff got taken out and put into its own articles or what. We do briefly mention cantons here for what it's worth (though keep in mind that cantons only exist in the Federation of BiH, which is one of the two entities; Republika Srpska doesn't have them).

  The template is actually good at demonstrating the confusing situation we're now in. There's a top-level header that links to Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which resolves to this page) and then a lower-level header that links to Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which also resolves to this page).

  At any rate, if this article is going to stay Entity-focus, my vote for name would still be "Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina". Jfruh (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I'm in support of that as well. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 04:55, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  So, if we have a concensus about the renaming of the article to "Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" shall we go forward? :) Vratiosevalter (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the move has not been open long enough for closure. Moreover, involved editors (like all of us) are not allowed to close RM discussions barring certain exceptions that do not apply here. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  And there is at least one person in opposition and so it's best to have someone else close it. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, and I apologize for my AI accusation earlier. I believed it looked like AI to me but I checked it with AI detection software and it said it wasn't; I shouldn't have levied unsupported accusations. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 17:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is for the general public, and "entity" does not even remotely imply or suggest a political unit. Prefer current title or "Political entities" to clarify what this article is about. Other alternatives should also be considered, e.g. "Administrative" or "Territorial", or "Territorial organization of BH", "Subdivisions of BH", etc. anything that suggests the content. Walrasiad (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  The term "Entities" is indeed a specific constitutional term of art within Bosnia and Herzegovina, and while it is the official name, it can be clarified through standard administrative descriptors rather than politically charged and inccorect ones like "confederal."

  It is worth noting that the corresponding articles on other language editions, such as the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia, use the title "Administrativna podjela Bosne i Hercegovine" (Administrative division of Bosnia and Herzegovina). This aligns with the universal naming pattern used for almost every other sovereign state on Wikipedia (e.g., "Administrative divisions of France" or "Subdivisions of Switzerland").

  Since @FloblinTheGoblin has already acknowledged that "confederal" is a subject of debate and a potentially inaccurate label, and given Walrasiad's preference for terms like "Administrative" or "Subdivisions," I propose we settle on a title that is both factually accurate and follows the site-wide manual of style. A title such as "Administrative divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina" or simply "Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" would resolve the disambiguation concerns without introducing WP:SYNTH or violating WP:NPOV. This provides the general public with the necessary context while respecting the constitutional and legal reality defined by the Dayton Agreement and the Constitutional Court. Vratiosevalter (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I oppose administrative divisions because that lacks the term "entity" which is how it is described in the constitution. If we're going to do a disambiguatory name I think Administrative entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

"Administrative entities" sounds like a list government ministries. Walrasiad (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, "political entities" still works I think. Either way it needs to include entities because that is how it is referred to in the constitiutions. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I simply don't understand the argument that somehow the "general public" will find the title confusing. Anywhere the reader would encounter this phrase as a link to this article, it would be in a context that would make the subject clear enough, and they could of course always click on the link itself to get an explanation. "Entities" may be odd but it's legally and constitutionally what the units are called, and Wikipedia should be conveying external reality to its readers above all other considerations.

That said, as I said above, this article was for many years titled "Political divisions of BiH" and I honestly don't see what the problem with that was, especially if we give an overview of the second-level divisions. I think "divisions" (small d) is a easy-to-understand generic term that covers not just the Entities but the Brcko District (which as noted is a de facto top level division if in theory its a condominium between the two entities) plus the cantons, municipalities, etc. As noted similar names are in use across English-language Wikipedia and elsewhere. My objection to "Confederal entities" was that the phrase implied a specific constitutional structure that was not reality. If we use "Entities" in the title it should ideally be by itself, but I don't think it's entirely necessary to use Entities in the title. Jfruh (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to simply "entities". My issue with Political divisions is that that includes the cantons and municipalities, which are only very briefly mentioned if at all. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You can't depend on the context of other sites as a crutch. This comes up in searches without context. The title has to stand alone and convey the content.

"Political divisions" has a very different meaning - i.e. political quarrels, party stuff, etc.

I don't know why you insist "entities" has to be in the title. This is about helping people find the article they're looking for, and I'm going to guess most people have no idea what the subdivisions are officially called. "Entities" is just rather unfortunate term, very open-ended, and not typically used for territorial subdivisions, and so not very informative of its content. People searching for this topic might skip over that title, not knowing this is what the article is about.

That said, I think adding "Territorial" might fix some of the ambiguities, e.g. "Territorial-administrative entities of BH". A bit longish, but at least doesn't sound like a ministries list. Walrasiad (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

To me, political divisions immediately makes me think divisions in the sense of Administrative divisions. However I personally would be more likely to confuse administrative with government agencies then I would political with party splits. Personally, I think territorial entities could perhaps work. However, I insist on entities because that's how they're named in the constitution. It's like U.S. states. Yes, it could be confused with a state of matter, state of confusion, or anything else, but that's what they're called. I do think entities is a far worse offender, however, which is why I'm not opposed to disambiguators. And if we want to make this an article about all of the political divisions, we could call it that, but to me, this article reads as being only about the first level divisions, or entities. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 22:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as I know every comparable wiki article for top-level administrative units of a country has one of two types of titles:

1. The actual legal/constitutional name of the units in question

2. The bland or generic "administrative" or "political divisions"

If you're worried that (1) in this case will cause confusion on search, good news: you can create any number of redirect titles that will show up on search and point the user here. "Provinces," "divisions," whatever you want that you think people might be searching on to get here. But those shouldn't be the actual title of the article, because they're not correct.

If you are worried that the concepts of (2) will cause confusion because people will think of them as generic terms, then please take it up with the dozens of times these phrases are used in articles across Wikipedia.

Again, I don't think "entities" is so strange that it will baffle our readers or keep them away, and I certainly don't think it's so strange (or the possibilities of #2 so confusing) as to require a bespoke article title that no other comparable title gets. Jfruh (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In English, it is very strange. We just never see that word used for an administrative unit anywhere. If it was locally unique word (like "cantref"), I might let it go. But it's not - "entity" is a very common word in English with many other connotations. We never see it applied this way. It doesn't show up in usual lists of administrative units. The article title needs to be WP:RECOGNIZABLE for general readers. If the very Bosnian Wiki doesn't title its article that way -- and Bosnian language readers ought to be more familiar with that usage -- than why make greater demands on English-language readers? We serve readers, not officialdom, they should be our priority. Such a phrase would be very ambiguous and so needs precision. I proposed the compromise of "Territorial-Administrative entities", and I'd probably be ok with "Territorial entities" (if we want to keep it short). But if that's too bespoke, then I'd prefer the generic "administrative divisions" or "subdivisions", rather than "entities". So I am still opposed to the proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly that I am fine with "administrative divisions." Again, this is what the article was named for years before the recent move to its current title.

What I am opposed to very strongly is moving the article from the current made-up title "Confederal entities" to another made-up title like "Territorial entities" or "Territorial-Administrative entities." The problem is that, strange as we may find it, "Entity" in this context is a proper noun, and putting adjectives in front of it to "clarify" what it means makes it actively incorrect, because that implies that those words are part of the formal name, which they aren't. Jfruh (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You say "in this context". But there is no context. Wikipedia article titles have to stand alone without any context. It doesn't imply anything about formal name, it is describing the content of the article. It's so readers can find it in general searches without context. Someone who is looking for the territorial subdivisions of BH would probably not recognize that "Entities of BH" is the article they're looking for. The purpose of an article title is to make it easier for readers to find. Walrasiad (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

By "context", I mean that "entities" is a proper noun describing a type of political subdivision in the context of Bosnian politics, which is what this article is about. Again, I am fine with leaving it out of the title if people think that's too confusing. But if we are going to put in the title, we should treat at as a proper noun, because that's why we're considering using it at all. If we're not going to treat it as a proper noun, that's even more confusing, and we should just use "subdivision" or whatever. Jfruh (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @Walrasiad. The term "entity" without any adjective, sounds like something from another realm. I repeat my opposition to move. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion given the last comment was a day ago. TarnishedPath^talk 04:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• oppose likely aislop that doesn't support the move or have any clear logic to it—blindlynx 13:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

support move to 'political entities' per clarification below—blindlynx 14:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• The proposer did seem to use annoying levels of AI, but the idea does have a clear logic - there may well be improper synthesis here if we contradict primary sources without citing secondary ones that directly support it. --Joy (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see why the adjective 'Confederal' is inappropriate here from what the chatbot spat out though. It not being used in official documents does not mean it doesn't provide clarity to readers here—blindlynx 14:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's inapprorpriate for two reasons:

  1. "Entities" is a proper noun in this context. Maybe it's too weird to use as the actual title in the article, but putting an adjective in front of it implies that that's part of the proper name.

  2. The question of whether Bosnia is a "confederation" is in fact a controversial one among the inhabitants, it's not a neutral statement of fact. Jfruh (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Blindlynx buddy you can try insulting me as much as you can, idgaf Vratiosevalter (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  The question of whether Bosnia is a "confederation" is in fact a controversial one among the inhabitants, it's not a neutral statement of fact this is all you needed to say. I'm not insulting you but if you can't be bothered to write something yourself then why do you expect other to put in effort?. Either way based on this comment i'll change my !vote—blindlynx 14:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have set it multiple times in this discussion! Jfruh (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Vratiosevalter's "term of art"; Jfruh's "States of Germany" argument, "actively incorrect", et al.; the Constitution; and United Nations usage in UNSC resolutions of May 2025, December 2025, etc. Adding "confederal" to help readers understand ultimately has the opposite effect. Moscow Mule (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  The guy used AI to make his point. Governor Sheng (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• I already said before that Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina was a reasonable possible title. Yes, it's a tad vague, but it's better than implying a specific meaning of confederation if that isn't actually applicable. --Joy (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Again, putting an adjective in front of "Entities" (which is a proper noun in this context, no matter how weird it sounds) is implying that it's part of the formal name for the territorial division and it's not. We should either use the standard Wikipedia generic name ("Administrative divisions") if people can't handle "Entities" alone. --Jfruh (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it is, because we're not using specialist political terminology (unlike "confederal"). Political entities is a non-judgmental descriptive title that implies a difference between the entiteti and more conventional administrative divisions, but doesn't go further than that. It seems to hit the sweet spot of not being completely coy like just "Entities" but not being completely mundane like "Administrative divisions". --Joy (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support moving to Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This whole proposal was AI-generated. It shouldn't be even discussed. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 30 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Final consensus was oppose. Both sides stated their opinions, however the final arguments opposed and discussion has stopped. Closed. (non-admin closure) Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina → Administrative divisions of Bosnia and HerzegovinaAdministrative divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina – Restarting the discussion in a hopefully AI-free way. As I noted above, "Confederal entities" is a very bad title because the question of whether BiH is a confederation is not a settled one and is in fact a subject of controversy. Many participants believe that "Entities" is too strange a name for the title, although I will note that it is in fact the formal constitutional name of the units under discussion, which is why I personally oppose using an adjective in front of it, because that implies that it's part of the formal name. I suggest the generic "Administrative divisions" title (it's already a redirect to this page) because it is in parallel with other Wikipedia articles and we use it generically across the encyclopedia. But other possibilities arose in the previous discussion that were preferable to "confederal entities" so I wanted to start another discussion to get consensus. Jfruh (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 23:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak oppose administrative divisions unless the article mentions the cantons and municipalities. This is precedent per Administrative divisions of New York (state), Administrative divisions of China, Administrative units of Pakistan, Administrative divisions of India, and more. If the cantons and municipalities and things are mentioned, then Strong support.

Real quick gonna dump all my other opinions on previously discussed names:

• Oppose confederal/federal per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Support Administrative entities/political entities. I do think it is necessary to have the disambiguator while still keeping the legal name.
• Weak oppose plain Entities, I think it's worse than administrative/political entities, because it's harder to tell what it is.
• Weak oppose territorial Entities as probably the easiest to confuse of the ____ entities.
• Oppose Territorial-administrative entities or anything else already discussed not listed here. That's unnecessarily complicated, and I think people won't be confused by "administrative Entities" or "political Entites". Yes, the former could be confused for bureaucratic organizations and the latter for other kinds of administrative divisions, but the big E should make it clear enough.

𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 18:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit: As Governor Sheng pointed out below, they are not Administrative. Oppose administrative, keep my support of political. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 12:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@FloblinTheGoblin I would to translate and enhrichen the other administrative levels (state and entity as well as cantonal and municipal) in any case, they are all part of the same chain of governance held by checks and balances. Vratiosevalter (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but could you rephrase? I don't follow. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 01:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• This title would require going further in depth with the administrative divisions to be proper. However, the topic of this article has been the entiteti, not the lower-level divisions. So if we're thinking of a title for that, I continue to think Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the most reasonable compromise presented so far. --Joy (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• I agree with Joy that Political entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the most reasonable compromise presented so far. Srnec (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Definitely move it away from "confederal" (and most definitely delete Konfederalni entiteti Bosne i Hercegovine / Конфедерални ентитети Босне и Херцеговине from the infobox, which I read as asserting them as official names). I still maintain it'd be a mistake to qualify "entities" in the title, per the text of the Dayton Agreement and the constitution: the drafters chose not to qualify them as administrative, political, territorial or anything else, so who are we to second-guess them? Sounds weird in English? Some countries are divided into "departments" – which sounds weird in English because of fire departments, departments of justice, etc. – but we have no problem with departments of France et al. Ditto "communes" – sounds weird in English because of hippies and cults – but that doesn't stop communes of Albania, etc. "Term of art", as was argued (admittedly, with the help of AI) in the previous RM. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, I proposed the move to "Administrative divisions" because the consensus of the last discussion seemed so strongly against entities unqualified, but entities unqualified would be my first choice too, so I might as well put that marker down here. I think the list you give of other odd-sounding administrative divisions is a good justification (and I'd add prefectures to this list as well).

  I honestly do not find the idea we have to remove all possible confusion or ambiguity from the title of article to be particularly persuasive. It's an impossible task, for one thing, and I am kind of stumped by the question of where a potential reader is going to encounter the title on its own and be confused by it in a way that steers them away from what they're looking for. WP:RECOGNIZABLE was cited to support this idea, but if you go look at that policy, it doesn't really apply here, as it's about using the commonly recognized name for something instead of a more formally correct one, like Bill Clinton instead of William Clinton or Hulk Hogan Terry Gene Bollea. If there were some widely used term in English for the entities of BiH, we should use that, the same way we use prefectures in Japan instead of todōfuken. But there isn't a widely used term that anyone's been able to cite, and instead of much of this discussion has been an attempt to invent one, which is not at all what we should be doing as Wikipedia editors. "Administrative division" seems to me preferable to making an invented name the title. --Jfruh (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. "Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" is more confusing than would be, e.g., "Scribbleflab of Bosnia and Herzegovina", because the moment you read "scribbleflab" you recognize a word you cannot be expected to know and you do not wonder about what the title means. You'll just have to read the article. But "Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina" contains only words you recognize and it appears to be the kind of title you should understand. But you won't. Srnec (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but what is the negative outcome that will arise from that misunderstanding? If it's matter of search, any alternate phrasing can be created as a redirect (and many already have). If you're already looking at article names in a list, the context is supplied by the list itself. I would consider creating an article title that conveys to the reader a name or term of art that doesn't exist to be a worse sin than instilling a moment of passing confusion on the part of the reader on seeing the title. Perhaps "Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (political subdivision)" solves these issues? --Jfruh (talk) Jfruh (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps another point of reference here is that the largely crowdsourced List of terms for administrative divisions doesn't mention these entities (though it does mention the kantoni). That's an indication that it's a bit too confusing (even for the community of editors with an interest in administrative divisions).

  Looking at other examples, there's also an interesting example of Communities, regions, and language areas of Belgium - we do not just name that article Communities of Belgium, presumably because that alone would be a bit too confusing, too. --Joy (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  The comparison with the departments and the communies is apt, though. I'd say the difference with the French example is age and prominence - several centuries, and coverage in many sources. With regard to the Albanian example it sounds like this is not a settled matter, as someone wrote about it being odd three years ago at Talk:Communes of Albania and the matter there wasn't really resolved. --Joy (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  For "scribbleflab" read voivodeship (a word I don't think I've encountered anywhere other than on WP). And France and Albania? Well, those examples were intended to be more about departments and communes in general than about the specific countries -- 'twas the tyranny of the alphabet that led me to choose Albania -- and others are available at Department (administrative division) and Municipality#Commune. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  So you're saying the comparison isn't actually apt, as these terms of art are known, but this one isn't? --Joy (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not what I was trying to say at all. Simply contributing other elements for the discussion. Sorry if I muddied the waters. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The two entities aren't administrative units. Completely unacceptable proposal. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Forgive me for asking, but how so are they non administrative? 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 14:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

An administrative unit is the unit of a unitary, centralised state. These aren't administrative unites established by the state, nor they can be modified in any way by the state. Governor Sheng (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Per administrative division the state doesn't have to be unitary and centralized, but you do seem to have a point in that the state would have to have priority, whereas in this case it's part of a complex international treaty, so it does not. --Joy (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw the conversation in Talk:Confederal entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina#"Political" 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 15:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 23:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jfruh strong support Vratiosevalter (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Governor Sheng. "Administrative division" is at least as misleading as "confeeral". Srnec (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tbh, I'm not sure if I agree with this close. I've brought it up at the closer's talk page, but let me know if you disagree. If they stand by their opinion without providing a compelling argument I'll probably go to Move review. Feel free to look at my argument and chime in if you wish. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 20:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The current title was, after all, your own proposal. In the end, as Pontius Pilate said, "What I have written, I have written" (John 19:22) Governor Sheng (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but I ended up realizing it was really a bad pick. You can see the move review for my tally of the !votes (although I know WP is not a poll, it's worth counting). 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 18:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 Vratiosevalter (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)